Tough talking Chelsea Handler breaks down as she discovers grandfather’s Nazi past in new episode of ‘Who Do You Think You Are?’
|| Daily Mail UK
“Every family’s history holds its secrets, for good and for bad.
For comedian Chelsea Handler, the biggest questions lay with the fact that her maternal grandfather fought for the Nazi regime in World War II.
In a new episode of TLC’s Who Do You Think You Are, Handler, 38, discovers exactly what role her grandfather, Karl Stoecker, played in one of history’s most atrocious genocides.
She traces his path from Nazi soldier to American immigrant through documents and interviews with sources familiar with her family’s history.
Handler’s story is made all the more compelling by the fact that was she raised Jewish in a family of faith.
‘My father, I guess, made a deal with my mother when they had children that they were gonna be raised Jewish,’ Handler says. ‘So I connect with my Judaism, or the Jewish side of my family, more than anything else.’
And growing up, Handler had no idea that her grandfather – a ‘very, very strong man’ she describes as having a ‘sense of humour’ – had a dark past.”
In the episode, she reveals that he was taken as a prisoner of war to America, where he likely stayed in Montana for several years.”
Note: Handler’s grandfather was a member of Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, the SA, Hitler’s ‘bully boys.’ Nobody was drafted into the SA or Brown Shirts, it was purely voluntary. /CJ
Kristallnacht and the Nazi Sturmabteilung in 1938 Germany
“The Kristallnacht riots were the culmination of Nazi assaults made upon the Jews in Germany and Austria following the Anschluss of March 1938. Nazi decrees and laws had gradually been undermining the Jews’ public and personal status and increasing their segregation from the general public.
Hermann Goering had made practical and legal preparations for the “Aryanization” (“Arisierung”) of Jewish property. The Gestapo and the SS under Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich had launched massive arrests of Jews, who were then imprisoned in the concentration camps of Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen. Beginning in July 1938, these camps were being prepared to receive an even greater number of Jews.
Moreover, functionaries of the National Socialist party, the Gauleiter, and the SA (Sturmabteilung; Storm Troopers) instigated local assaults on Jewish businesses and synagogues.”
Obama’s Former Asst. Defense Secretary ADMITS ON MSNBC Obama Admin Spied on Trump
Former Assistant Defense Secretary under the Obama administration, Evelyn Farkas admitted that the Obama administration was trying to collect as much intelligence as possible on the Trump administration.
Evelyn Farkas also served as an advisor to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Presidential campaign and was up for a position in the Clinton administration if Hillary became President.
“Evelyn Farkas: “…Frankly speaking the people on The Hill..get as much information as you can. Get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy…
Ummm that the Trump folks if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians that they would try to compromise the sources and methods meaning that we would no longer have access to that intelligence.”
It’s no big deal that she had access to information on the Trump campaign while advising his opponent, Hillary Clinton, right? Nothing to see here, move along…
There is a massive amount of evidence piling up that the Trump camp was spied on by the Obama administration, but Russia, right? The fake Russian narrative is to distract from Obamagate.”
Obama Intel Changes Could Have Allowed NSA Intercepts Of Americans To Fall Victim To ‘Political Espionage’
“Was Donald Trump wiretapped? Was the transition team under surveillance? There are more questions than answers, especially with the latter question, but one thing is clear: our intelligence community caught the Trump transition team through incidental collection. John Solomon and Sara Carter of Circa News reported that those logs are expected to be turned over to Congress next week, as they investigate possible links between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet, they didn’t get into the weeds concerning the allegations that have yet to unveil any solid evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign. Carter and Solomon decided to look into the regulations regarding NSA surveillance, which were changed under Obama that allowed unmasking of American caught through incidental collection to possibly become victim to political games.
Solomon and Carter also added that 16 other executive agencies, not just the FBI and CIA, can now ask for unmasked information after the Obama tweaks to NSA minimization protocols, the process in which the NSA conceals the identity of a citizen who was not subject to the FISA warrant. It’s done either through redaction or naming them generically, like American No. 1. Yet, given the rise in lone wolf attacks, those procedures aimed at protecting privacy were reduced:
The intelligence community fought hard over the last decade starting under George W. Bush and continuing under Obama to gain greater access to NSA intercepts of Americans overseas, citing the growing challenges of stopping lone wolf terrorists, state-sponsored hackers, and foreign threats. But those directly familiar with the processes acknowledged the breadth of access today could be abused for political espionage or pure prurient interests, instead of just compelling national security interests.
The ACLU, an ally of Obama on many issues, issued a statement a few months ago warning that the president’s loosened procedures governing who could request or see unmasked American intercepts by the NSA were “grossly inadequate” and lacked “appropriate safeguards.”
Nunes, the House intelligence panel chairman who was not interviewed for this story, alleged in the last week he has received evidence that Obama administration political figures gained access to unmasked American identities through foreign intercepts involving the Trump transition team between November and January.
…as the U.S. intelligence community became more worried over the last decade about its ability to locate lone wolf terrorists, foreign spies and hackers in an increasingly digital world, Bush and Obama began relaxing the rules for minimization and increasing access to NSA collected information on Americans. In short, the Obama administration created a standard set of “exceptions” to the minimization rules.
One of those relaxations came in 2011 when Attorney General Eric Holder sent a memo to the FISA court laying out the rules for sharing unmasked intercepts of Americans captured incidentally by the NSA. The court approved the approach.
In 2015, those rules were adapted to determine not only how the FBI got access to unmasked intelligence from NSA or FISA intercepts but also other agencies. One of the requirements, the NSA and FBI had to keep good records of who requested and gained access to the unredacted information.
And in his final days in office, Obama created the largest ever expansion of access to non-minimized NSA intercepts, creating a path for all U.S. intelligence to gain access to unmasked reports by changes encoded in a Reagan-era Executive Order 12333.
The government officials who could request or approve an exception to unmask a U.S. citizen’s identity has grown substantially. The NSA now has 20 executives who can approve the unmasking of American information inside intercepts, and the FBI has similar numbers.
This isn’t new concerning the game of government exploiting new technological features to maximize its power and take advantage of it before the courts can catch up.”
Robert Barnes: Can Trump Legally Stop Sanctuary Cities? Yes. Remember Brown v. Board of Education
“Over 100 jurisdictions, from Manhattan to Malibu, refuse to assist federal law enforcement in their immigration law enforcement duties, especially as to criminal aliens arrested for crimes here in the United States but released before federal law enforcement can detain and deport.
These governments labeled themselves “sanctuary” cities, but a better label would be secessionist cities.
Two means of redress and remedy exist: first, the current path, of defunding sanctuary cities, a path much more legally perilous, but well-founded in the same doctrine that integrated American society; and second, an alternative, complimentary path of funding law-abiding cities with aid to enforce immigration law, an indubitably and indisputably legal remedy.
The legal argument the “sanctuary” cities rely upon bears merit, but they misuse and abuse the doctrine behind it. The “anti-commandeering” doctrine found one of its most articulate voices in Justice Scalia. The doctrine best distilled is this: “even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” The feds cannot shift enforcement to local government. That same doctrine makes the current path of defunding sanctuary cities a legally rocky road, especially in the current judiciary environment.
The Supreme Court made clear in two prior precedents the federal government cannot coerce states into acting as conscripted agents of federal law enforcement. When properly used, this anti-conscription doctrine is mostly a good thing, foreclosing the federalization of local life and municipal governments. When abused, it invites secessionist thinking. That is where a seminal precedent from the Second Circuit gives direction to support Sessions and Trump against the secessionist cities.
The seminal case supporting Sessions and Trump arises from the Second Circuit in enforcing comparable provisions of federal law passed by Clinton and Gingrich. Federal law then prohibited state and local governmental entities or officials from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information between local and federal officials. The statute Sessions cited and Trump relied upon for his executive order confers the same power: it only prohibits state and local governments from precluding voluntary participation in immigration enforcement, an area uniquely vested in the federal branches of power. As the statute states: “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
Where did the Second Circuit look for precluding lawless, secessionist minded municipal government going rogue against appropriate federal law and respect of federal elections? Brown v. Board of Education, the most famous and celebrated case in Supreme Court history.
As the Second Circuit properly summarized: the sanctuary city argument “asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment’s shield against the federal government’s using state and local government to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrate federal programs,” including those programs of unique federal provenance and priority, such as immigration. Such actions could cause federal programs to “fail or fall short of their goals,” force the federal government to “restore to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter,” and invite “a refusal by local government to cooperate until a court order to do so.
As the Second Circuit further noted: “A system of dual sovereignties cannot work without informed, extensive and cooperative interaction of a voluntary nature between sovereign systems for the mutual benefit of each system. The operation of dual sovereigns thus involves mutual dependencies” that can hardly survive as separate, antagonistic sovereigns. “Without the Constitution, each sovereign could, to a free, hold the other hostage by selectively withholding voluntary cooperations as to a particular program.” That is why the Supremacy Clause “bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws” in those areas of law the Constitution empowers the federal branches of government, like immigration. As the Second Circuit concluded almost two decades ago in undisturbed law: “states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular federal programs.”
This opens the door to a complimentary, alternative option: formally funding cities, counties, and states that assist with enforcement of immigration laws against criminal and potentially dangerous aliens, a power all courts recognize Congress and the President enjoy. This parallel strategy employs the carrot rather than the stick, but avoids the traps of the deep state allies and their secessionist city friends in the federal courts, much as federal funding of integrated schools acted as a deterrent to less-funded segregated classrooms.
Let liberty ring. Let the laws be enforced to safeguard those whose liberty the law protects in the first place: the citizens of the United States.”
Masked Agitators Attack President’s Supporters, Whine When MAGA Strikes Back
| PJ Media
“Pepper spray seems to be the weapon of choice for the anti-Trump left in California since the election.
Anti-Trump agitators pepper-sprayed Trump supporters attending a Milo Yiannopoulos event in Berkeley last month, and a “Make America Great Again” march in Huntington Beach turned violent in similar fashion on Saturday, leading to four arrests.
The march drew about 2,000 Trump supporters — many of them wearing MAGA hats and waving American flags, according to the Orange County Register.
After about a dozen agitators wearing black masks formed a wall blocking the marchers as they made their way down to Bolsa Chica State Beach, the situation got ugly with a lot of yelling back and forth and at least one person — a female march organizer — getting pepper-sprayed.
A group of flag-waving Trump supporters tackled the man with the pepper spray, who was wearing a black mask, and started punching and kicking him, according to witnesses. Several other fights also broke out between demonstrators.
Jennifer Sterling, the organizer who was pepper-sprayed, said the purpose of the patriotic rally was not only to show support for Trump, but to celebrate first responders, military veterans, and the vice president.
Darlene Savord, another organizer, said that the event was “a huge, huge success,” and dismissed the violence. “We had a lot of Trump supporters here, which shows that we are united,” she said.
Four people — all agitators — were arrested following the brawl that lasted about a half-hour. Three were arrested for alleged illegal use of pepper spray and a fourth person was arrested for alleged assault and battery, Capt. Pearsall said.
The anti-Trumpers were trying to stop the march by creating a “human wall.” As Fox News reported, they “appeared to be looking for trouble.”
Agitators have been “looking for trouble” (also known as “bird-dogging”) at Trump rallies for well over a year now.
The rally in Huntington Beach was one of about 40 affiliated events that were scheduled nationwide Saturday. The rest of the rallies were reportedly not marred by anti-Trump violence.”
Next Words Director Comey May Hear From President Trump? ‘You’re Fired!’
“If there’s one thing we know about President Donald Trump, it’s that he’s not afraid to yell, “you’re fired!” anytime he hears something he dislikes. 45 must be practicing his termination declarations Monday, after a day of James Comey’s testimony before Congress. Comey, the Obama-appointed FBI director testified today before the House Intelligence Committee, and that testimony boiled down to this: Obama’s wiretapping is “fake news,” and the Trump-Russia connection isn’t (or at the very least they are investigating).
If you’re thinking that it’s a little weird for the FBI to be commenting on an open investigation, you’re right. The FBI is generally pretty tight-lipped about its work. But bizarre times call for bizarre measures, and Comey explained that in “unusual circumstances where it is in the public interest,” he would share what information he could about what’s been going on with our president.
Comey began his hours of testimony with this confirmation that Trump’s campaign is being investigated, and that investigation is a criminal one:
While Donald Trump is known for his pervasive inconsistency, he is consistent about one thing: getting rid of those who threaten his authority. He has been known to fire (or, if we’re talking Hillary Clinton, threaten to “lock up”) any worthy opponent. Just last week, news broke that Trump had fired U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara and dozens of other U.S. Attorneys. Although turnover of federally-appointed prosecutors is typical, Bharara’s firing was not. For starters, it opposed a public announcement last November that Bharara had been officially asked to stay on into the Trump administration. Stranger still was the timing. Right at the time he was fired, Bharara had reportedly been conducting an investigation into Tom Price, Trump’s new Health and Human Services Secretary, over some shady stock transactions.
By contrast, Comey’s calling Trump out for lying about President Obama, while simultaneously confirming that the FBI is amidst an investigation over collusion with Russia is a one-two punch that leaves the Price investigation in the dust. Trump, a compulsively reactive person when publicly embarrassed, is likely doing far more than licking his wounds right now. But could Trump really fire James Comey?
He sure can. Under federal law, the F.B.I. director is appointed to one 10-year term – a term length purposely created such that it overlaps presidential administrations. Presidents may fire the FBI director (and Congress can impeach one) – and according to a 2014 report by the Congressional Research Service, “there are no statutory conditions on the President’s authority to remove the FBI Director.” While some FBI directors have resigned prior to the end of their terms, only one – William S. Sessions (appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987) – was ever fired. Sessions was fired by President Bill Clinton in the wake of allegations of ethics violations, such as misuse of public funds for his private benefit.
It was impossible to listen to Comey’s testimony Monday without anticipating Trump’s cutting short his tenure as Director. And yet, such a reality was all but unthinkable just a few short months ago. James Comey’s unprecedented public statement made the week prior to the 2016 presidential election was largely considered the thing that sealed President Trump’s win. Just a few days before Election Day, Comey announced that the Hillary Clinton was being reopened. Although little came of the announcement relative to that investigation, the bell could not be un-rung, and Hillary Clinton was pronounced for evermore, “extremely careless” with the handling of classified information. Candidate Trump could not have asked for a better gift; many, though, like Senator Harry Reid, and ethics specialist Richard Painter, criticized Comey for having acted improperly and perhaps even illegally.”
Defiant FBI Chief Is Fired by President Clinton: Law enforcement – Alleged ethical abuses by Sessions are cited as reason for dismissal. He refused to resign.
| LA Times – 1993
“WASHINGTON — FBI Director William S. Sessions, who stubbornly refused to resign despite Justice Department ethics findings that he abused his office, was fired Monday by President Clinton–the first time a director of the storied agency has been dismissed.
Clinton and Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, steeling the Administration against claims that the decision was politically motivated, used unmistakably blunt language to describe Sessions’ failings. Reno “has reported to me in no uncertain terms that he can no longer effectively lead the bureau and law enforcement community,” Clinton said, adding that he fully agreed with her recommendation to replace Sessions immediately.
Clinton is expected to announce today that he plans to nominate U.S. District Court Judge Louis J. Freeh of New York, a former FBI agent and federal prosecutor, to succeed Sessions. Clinton met with Freeh for 90 minutes Friday night.
“With a change in management in the FBI, we can now give the crime fighters the leadership they deserve,” Clinton said. Administration officials said Monday that they know of no other candidate under consideration for the post.
Clinton dismissed Sessions after the director rejected Administration entreaties to resign, contending that to voluntarily step down would violate the principle of an independent FBI. The FBI director is appointed to a 10-year term but serves at the pleasure of the President.
Sessions was appointed 5 1/2 years ago by former President Ronald Reagan.
“We cannot have a leadership vacuum at an agency as important to the United States as the FBI,” Clinton said at a White House press conference. “It is time that this difficult chapter in the agency’s history is brought to a close.”
With Senate confirmation of the next FBI director not likely before fall, Clinton said that Deputy Director Floyd I. Clarke would serve as acting director. Sessions’ wife, Alice, has repeatedly accused Clarke of leading an internal cabal to force her husband from office, and Sessions has publicly questioned Clarke’s loyalty.
At his press conference, Clinton rejected the suggestion that Sessions fell victim to an internal vendetta and responded “absolutely not” when asked if the removal of Sessions would create the impression that the FBI is being subjected to political pressures.
Clinton cited the six-month-old highly critical report on Sessions’ conduct by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which investigated the director in the final year of the George Bush Administration.
Clinton noted that the attorney general had studied the findings and thoroughly reviewed Sessions’ leadership.
Reno said that, when she took office last March, then acting Atty. Gen. Stuart Gerson, a Republican holdover, advised her that Sessions “had exhibited flawed judgment which had an adverse effect within the FBI.”
But Reno said she wanted to make her own independent assessment of Sessions’ ability to lead the FBI, noting that she felt very strongly that the FBI director “should be above politics and not automatically subject to replacement with a change of administrations.”
The Justice Department report found, among other things, that Sessions had engaged in a sham transaction to avoid paying taxes on his use of an FBI limousine to take him to and from work, that he had billed the government for a security fence around his home that provided no security and that he had arranged business trips to places where he could meet with relatives.
Sessions dismissed the findings as biased and said that they resulted from “animus” toward him by former Atty. Gen. William P. Barr, who–on his last day in office last January–presented the report to Sessions with orders to take remedial actions.
In addition to the sections of the report that have been released, the investigation looked into whether Sessions had accepted a “sweetheart” deal on his home loan from a Washington bank and into other matters that have not been made public, sources familiar with it said.”
REPORT: FBI Said to Have ‘Granted FISA Warrant’ To Wiretap TRUMP Tower!
“Earlier this morning, Trump took to Twitter to express his outrage over wiretapping at Trump Tower during Obama’s Presidency. Back in November, the media did confirm that wiretapping did allegedly take place, via Heat Street:
Contrary to earlier reporting in the New York Times, which cited FBI sources as saying that the agency did not believe that the private server in Donald Trump’s Trump Tower which was connected to a Russian bank had any nefarious purpose, the FBI’s counter-intelligence arm, sources say, re-drew an earlier FISA court request […].
The original FISA request which specifically named and broadly targeted Donald Trump was denied, a second request was redrafted months later which narrowed down on equipment in Trump Tower. The second request is said to have been granted, despite the fact that FBI sources did not believe these servers to be of actual national security or possess any illegal ties to Russia. The notion that this second FISA warrant was granted is highly significant as they exist to investigate cases when Foreign Intelligence is suspected of operations in the US.
The implication is that Trump or one of his employees was secretly functioning as a Russian-sanctioned spy (which is obviously absurd). However illegitimate the request was, the granting of said FISA request allows the government major access:
Pursuant to FISA, the Court entertains applications submitted by the United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and other investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. Most of the Court’s work is conducted ex parte as required by statute, and due to the need to protect classified national security information.
Contrary to a lack of any evidence by the Obama Administration or FBI, the possibility of the second FISA request being granted would indeed monitor activity within Trump Tower. Again, this FISA request was issued with no definitive proof/evidence that Trump had any nefarious ties to Russia – instead, it bears the hallmarks of a political witch hunt.
If proven, there is a good chance the issuing judge and corresponding FBI personnel will soon face serious jail time. Liberal media is ignoring this, and instead seems to have coordinated a large online campaign with headlines that almost consistently read “Provides No Evidence”. So let’s get this straight: The GOP is accused of colluding with Russians MSM publishes as a front-page story fact, Trump accuses Obama of wiretapping and… “PROVIDES NO EVIDENCE!”
Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election in ‘Nixon/Watergate’ style scandal
– Daily Mail UK
“The Obama administration has strongly denied President Donald Trump’s claims that Barack Obama wire-tapped his phones at Trump Tower before the election.
Obama’s spokesman Kevin Lewis released a statement Saturday afternoon refuting Trump’s wire-tapping claims.
‘A cardinal rule of the Obama administration was that no White House official ever interfered with any independent investigation led by the Department of Justice,’ Lewis wrote.
‘As part of that practice, neither President Obama nor any White House official ever ordered surveillance on any U.S. citizen. Any suggestion otherwise is simply false.’
Lewis’ statement comes shortly after Trump fired off a flurry of tweets early Saturday morning claiming that the former president had been spying on him in October, a month before his election victory.
‘Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!’
McCarthyism, which the president used in his first tweet, is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.
Trump started tweeting shortly after 3.30am ET and posed the question: ‘Is it legal for a sitting President to be ‘wire tapping’ a race for president prior to an election?’
In another tweet Trump said it was a ‘new low’ for the former president, compared it to ‘Nixon/Watergate’ and called Obama a ‘bad (or sick) guy’.
‘It seems unthinkable. If that were the case by some chance, that means that a federal judge would have found that there was either probable cause that he had committed a crime or was an agent of a foreign power,’ the official said.
According to the official, a wiretap cannot be directed at a US facility, without finding probable cause that the phone lines or internet addresses were being used by agents of a foreign power.
‘You can’t just go around and tap buildings,’ the official told the Post.
Another former senior US official, who worked under the Obama administration, told CNN there was no such investigation of Trump, nor were his phones tapped.
‘This did not happen. It is false. Wrong,’ the former official said.
The official echoed that of others saying Obama could not have ordered this and adding that it would have been taken to a judge by investigators, but investigators never did that.”
– Let’s all remember the time the Obama Admistration spying apparatus tapped the phones of Germany’s Chancellor and France’s president Hollande, wherein the Obama denied it, then later stated Obama was not aware of what his NSA was doing. On the heels of President Trump’s newest accusations, recall we are dealing with Obama, an individual with a record of secret spying and lying about it. Just like Nixon. This is going to get very interesting. /CJ
Angela Merkel’s call to Obama: are you bugging my mobile phone?
– the Guardian | 2013
“The furore over the scale of American mass surveillance revealed by Edward Snowden shifted to an incendiary new level on Wednesday evening when Angela Merkel of Germany called Barack Obama to demand explanations over reports that the US National Security Agency was monitoring her mobile phone.
Merkel was said by informed sources in Germany to be “livid” over the reports and convinced, on the basis of a German intelligence investigation, that the reports were utterly substantiated.
The German news weekly, Der Spiegel, reported an investigation by German intelligence, prompted by research from the magazine, that produced plausible information that Merkel’s mobile was targeted by the US eavesdropping agency. The German chancellor found the evidence substantial enough to call the White House and demand clarification.
The outrage in Berlin came days after President François Hollande of France also called the White House to confront Obama with reports that the NSA was targeting the private phone calls and text messages of millions of French people.
While European leaders have generally been keen to play down the impact of the whistleblowing disclosures in recent months, events in the EU’s two biggest countries this week threatened an upward spiral of lack of trust in transatlantic relations.
Merkel’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, made plain that Merkel upbraided Obama unusually sharply and also voiced exasperation at the slowness of the Americans to respond to detailed questions on the NSA scandal since the Snowden revelations first appeared in the Guardian in June.
Merkel told Obama that “she unmistakably disapproves of and views as completely unacceptable such practices, if the indications are authenticated,” Seifert said. “This would be a serious breach of confidence. Such practices have to be halted immediately.”
The sharpness of the German complaint direct to an American president strongly suggested that Berlin had no doubt about the grounds for protest. Seibert voiced irritation that the Germans had waited for months for proper answers from Washington to Berlin on the NSA operations.
Merkel told Obama she expected the Americans “to supply information over the possible scale of such eavesdropping practices against Germany and reply to questions that the federal government asked months ago”, Seibert said.
The White House responded that Merkel’s mobile is not being tapped. “The president assured the chancellor that the United States is not monitoring and will not monitor the communications of the chancellor,” said a statement from Jay Carney, the White House spokesman.
But Berlin promptly signalled that the rebuttal referred to the present and the future and did not deny that Merkel’s communications had been monitored in the past.
Asked by the Guardian if the US had monitored the German chancellor’s phone in the past, a top White House official declined to deny that it had.
“The Obama administration engaged in surveillance of Trump Tower communications during the 2016 Election. With that fact now front and center, voters would do well to recall all of the “leaks” that were said to be coming from inside the then-Trump campaign.
Were operatives working under the direction of a then-sitting President of the United States, the source of those leaks? Some are already suggesting YES, making what Barack Obama potentially did in 2016 MUCH WORSE than anything Richard Nixon did leading up to the Watergate scandal. This is big. This is the Obama Shadow Government now being exposed in real time:
UPDATE: Sources now indicating top Democrats and Republicans were aware of the surveillance (and potential subsequent leaks) being conducted on/against the Trump campaign. These include, but are not limited to, House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham.”
“White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon chided the media throughout his Thursday appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), tagging reporters with his favorite nickname: the opposition party.
“If you look at the opposition party, how they portrayed the campaign, how they portrayed the transition, how they portray the administration, it’s always wrong,” Bannon said.
“If you remember, the campaign, by the media’s description, was the most chaotic, the most disorganized, most unprofessional, had no idea what they were doing. And then you saw [the media] all crying and weeping” on election night.
Bannon, the controversial former head of Breitbart News, has embraced his role as the media’s top antagonist. Speaking alongside White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, he framed the media as part of a global war against the president’s agenda after Priebus accused the media of taking potshots at Trump over the summer of 2016.
“The corporatist, globalist media is adamantly opposed to economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has,” he said.
“He’s going to continue to press his agenda as economic conditions get better, as jobs get better, they are going to continue to fight. If they think they are going to give you your country back without a fight, you are mistaken. Every day, it is going to be a fight.”
CPAC 2017 | Top Donald Trump Advisor Steve Bannon – Complete Interview
House Dem IT Staffers Owed Money To Hezbollah-Connected Fugitive
“Congressional aides suspected of criminally misusing their access to House computer systems owed $100,000 to an Iraqi politician who is wanted by U.S. authorities and has been linked to Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Middle Eastern terrorist outfit.
Imran Awan and four of his relatives were employed as information technology (IT) aides by dozens of House Democrats, including members of the intelligence, foreign affairs and homeland security committees. The aides’ administrator-level IT access was terminated earlier this month amid a criminal probe by U.S. Capitol Police of a suspected security breach, including an off-site server housing congressional data.
The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has reported that while working for Congress, the Pakistani brothers controlled a limited liability corporation called Cars International A (CIA), a car dealership with odd finances, which took–and was unable to repay–a $100,000 loan from Dr. Ali Al-Attar.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, wrote that Attar “was observed in Beirut, Lebanon conversing with a Hezbollah official” in 2012–shortly after the loan was made. Attar has also been accused of helping provoke the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a leader of Iraqi dissidents opposed to Saddam Hussein.
After moving to the U.S., Attar made his money practicing medicine in Maryland and Virginia and defrauding Medicare, Medicaid and insurance companies by billing for non-existent medical procedures. The FBI raided his offices in 2009 and the Department of Health and Human Services sued his business partner in 2011.
Attar was indicted in March 2012 on separate tax fraud charges after the IRS and FBI found he used multiple bank accounts to hide income. He fled back to Iraq to avoid prison.”
Social Security Administration Paid $1 Billion in Benefits to Those Without a SSN
“The Social Security Administration paid $1 billion in benefits to those who did not have a Social Security number (SSN), according to a recent audit.
The agency’s inspector general found errors in how the government documented representative payees or individuals who are designated to receive retirement or disability benefits on behalf of those who cannot manage the benefits themselves, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
The audit, released Friday, found thousands of instances where no SSN was found on file.
The agency paid $1 billion to 22,426 representative payees who “did not have an SSN” and had not kept any paper applications supporting an individual’s case to receive benefits on someone else’s behalf, according to the inspector general.
“Furthermore, unless it takes corrective action, we estimate SSA will pay about $182.5 million in benefits, annually, to representative payees who do not have an SSN or paper application supporting their selection,” the inspector general said.
The agency also paid $853.1 million in benefits since 2004 to individuals whom the agency terminated as representative payees.
The inspector general said the errors occurred because the agency did not keep paper records of applications or purge terminated employees from the system.
Of the audit’s sample of 100 beneficiaries, only six SSN’s were properly recorded.
The inspector general also said that illegal aliens had been receiving benefits through the representative payee system.
Illegal aliens without SSNs are allowed to receive government benefits if they are representing their minor children.”